Pre-clovis occupation doubtful...
| Author |
Message |
|
00cjdier..
#1 / 20
|
 Pre-clovis occupation doubtful... A lot of talk about the clovis/pre-clovis controversy has been popping up here lately, and it appears that a lot of idealistic- minded individuals are involved in the discussion. Many people are writing that almost all current archaeologists accepta pre-clovis occupation. That is incorrect. To say that all optomistic, idealistic archaeologist believe that would be more correct. There is in fact, little evidence for pre-clovis occupation, and strong evidence that clovis man was the first in the new world. The evidence is multidisciplinary. To begin with, one writer stated that it is unlikely that the land-bridge was not fit to support a migration, and it was unlikely that there were people ain siberia at the time of migration. A simple study of the paleo-ecology of the Beringian and ice-free corridor regions at the time of migration reveals that not only were there abundant trees, but the desired megafauna as well. (Schweger, et. al. 1982), (Schweger, 1989) (Dawson, A.G. 1992) (Hoffecker, et. al. 1993). It is well known, as well, that there were multiple cultural complexes in Siberia at the time of migration (Dyuktai) living in the Lena River valley, and Northern mountain ranges. Late quaternary paeleo-environ- mental evidence suggests strongly that the impetus for migration would have been strong around 12,500-12,000 BP. (Clague, J.J. 1989, 91) (Fulton, R. 1991) (Jackson, L.E., 1991). If there were migrants earlier that Clovis, where is the evidence? All of the sites cited by previous authors, despite their claims of unquestioned authenticity, are *extremely* questionable. Apparently nobody abides by the "artifacts of indisputible human origins in direct association with pre-historic flora or faunal remains" criterion any more. Just to name a couple of site that suffer drastically from close scrutiny, Pedra Furada, with it's pebble choppers... If you believe Paul Bahn in his 1993 "Nature" article that Pedra has a 50,000 year chronology, I have a worn-out marshalltown you can have for a low collector's price! As for Meadowcroft Rockshelter, I've read the site reports and I've been there twice. If that site is pre-clovis, then I'm the pope. There are many and various reasons why *all* purported pre-clovis site lack serious proof. (Haynes, 1982, 87) (Kunz & Reanier, 1994). Perhaps the most compelling evidence that clovis was first comes from a different continent all-together. Arthur Jelenik (1992) compares the American Archaeological situation to that of Australia. In Australia, with very few archaeologists working over a much shorter time-span, archaeologists have established well over thirty sites with undisputed dates of over 17,000 BP. Some sites show convincing dates of over 30,000 years. If there were pre-clovis occupants of the new world why haven't we found them? When one considers that archaeology has been conducted voraciously in this country for almost 60 years, it seems odd that we have not yet firmly established any site dates over 12,000 BP. In addition, consider that development turns up more important sites that archaeology, (at least before CRM) and North and South America are *infinitely* more developed that Austrailia. (Jelenik, 1992) So even if there were pre-clovis occupants, they left no mark, were small in number, and are therefore inconsequential. I would like as muchas the next guy to think that the New World has a pre-clovis antiquity, but all evidence points strongly away from that suggestion. Chris Diersen
Dept. of Geology
Dept. of Anthropology
Ball State University
|
| Thu, 31 Jul 1997 05:23:22 GMT |
|
 |
|
#2 / 20
|
Pre-clovis occupation doubtful...
|
| Fri, 19 Jun 1992 00:00:00 GMT |
|
|
|
00cjdier..
#3 / 20
|
Pre-clovis occupation doubtful... Quote:
>>... >>> There are 30 sites listed in the "Times Atlas of Archaeology", Hammond, >>> Maplewood NJ, 1986, dated to 25,00 years BP or earlier. Of these, >>> Bluefish Cave, Wilson Butte Cave, Kimmswick, Cedral, Tamaulipas, Tlapcoyan, >>> Coxcatlan, Taimataima, and Pedra Furada, seem to be the most universaly >>> accepted as early sites. >>I will gladly take these sites one-by one when I have tim and tell you
>>exactly what's wrong with them. Let me take care of a few of them
>>right now. Rock-varnish-dating. Think about it. Many of these sites
>>are dated by rock-varnish dates. If you know anything about rock varnish,
>>you'll know that it is the most unreliable, deceptive dating method
>>available. That knocks out Pedra Furada, and most of the rest of the
>>South american sites.
> Pedra Furada dates are not based on rock-varnish, but on charcoal in the
> stratigraphic sequence. I think that the jury is still out on the
> reliability of rock-varnish dating. For another point of view, see:
> Whitley and Dorn, 1993, New Perspectives on the Clovis vs. Pre-Clovis
> Controversy, American Antiquity 58(4), pp. 626-647.
I referenced Whitley and Dorn in a paper I wrote on the subject of paleo- migration. The paper you mention provides no conclusive evidence as to pre clovis occupation. Their migration models, are fine, until they present their version of a migration model, which is more a diatribe against the models presented by Haynes and Martin. So far as I have seen, the oldest date given for Pedra Furada (radiocarbon-wise) is 10,400 BP (at least the oldest RC date with cultural association) and this doesn't refute a Clovis antiquity at all. The basic problem I found with "New Perspectives" is that Whitley and Dorn found their case on the assumption that it would have been impossible for Clovis man to cover the New World in 1,000 years. To assume this is fool- hardy. Such a migration is quite possible, and we have no modern analogous situation to compare it to. I'll admit that I didn't read Whitley and Dorn with an entirely open mind. :) I'll read it again and give it another chance. chris
Quote:
|
| Tue, 05 Aug 1997 01:34:30 GMT |
|
|
|
alli..
#4 / 20
|
Pre-clovis occupation doubtful... Quote:
>>> A lot of talk about the clovis/pre-clovis controversy has been
>>>popping up here lately, and it appears that a lot of idealistic-
>>>minded individuals are involved in the discussion.
>whittet replies:
>>We have thirty sites dated to 25,000 years BP. At Monte Verde in southern
>>Chile we have a settled community of hunter gatherers with timber buildings
>>preserved in peat, and the remains of cultivated medicinal plants, carbon
>>and dendrichronologicaly dated to 13,000 BP.
>Is it true that there is a Dendrichronological record for Chile that goes
>back 13,000 years? Am I correct in thinking that we are talking about tree
>ring dating here?
>DuVal
I don't think its true. You are correct that dendr*o*chronological dating means dating by use of tree rings, but I'm pretty sure that all the dates from Monte Verde are radiocarbon dates. Whittet has the dates about right (12000-13000 BP), although the buildings were apparently not solid wood construction - they had log foundations and frameworks, probably covered by skin. Jim Allison
|
| Wed, 06 Aug 1997 01:04:00 GMT |
|
|
|
alli..
#5 / 20
|
Pre-clovis occupation doubtful...
much deleted ...
So far as I have seen, the oldest date given
Quote: >for Pedra Furada (radiocarbon-wise) is 10,400 BP (at least the oldest RC date >with cultural association) and this doesn't refute a Clovis antiquity at all. >The basic problem I found with "New Perspectives" is that Whitley and Dorn >found their case on the assumption that it would have been impossible for >Clovis man to cover the New World in 1,000 years. To assume this is fool- >hardy. Such a migration is quite possible, and we have no modern analogous >situation to compare it to. I'll admit that I didn't read Whitley and Dorn >with an entirely open mind. :) I'll read it again and give it another >chance. >chris
This is wrong (or at least sort of wrong) with regard to the dates from Pedra Furada. The dates go back much further than this, including seven dates at greater than 40,000 BP, another ten between 30,000 and 40,000, and eleven more between 20,000 and 30,000. The excavators (and a few others) claim that all these dates have cultural associations, although this is hotly disputed. The 10,400 date is the earliest date with undisputed (at least as far as I know) cultural association -- undisputed because of the association with chert artifacts (rather than just broken quartzite cobbles that occur naturally in the cave), and with formal fire hearths (rather than just the amorphous concentrations of ash that are called 'hearths' in the early levels). Jim Allison
|
| Wed, 06 Aug 1997 01:25:56 GMT |
|
|
|
whitt
#6 / 20
|
Pre-clovis occupation doubtful...
Quote:
>>Path:
>>stc06.CTD.ORNL.GOV!fnnews.fnal.gov!uwm.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!howland.reston.ans
>>.net!news2.near.net!news3.near.net!noc.near.net!shore.shore.net!usenet
>>Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
>>Subject: Re: Pre-clovis occupation
>>Date: 13 Feb 1995 14:16:15 GMT
>>Organization: North Shore Access
>>Lines: 189
>>NNTP-Posting-Host: berthb11.shore.net
>>X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1
>>> A lot of talk about the clovis/pre-clovis controversy has been
>>>popping up here lately, and it appears that a lot of idealistic-
>>>minded individuals are involved in the discussion.
>whittet replies:
>>This looks like it has the potential for a pretty good debate.
>(Lots of Stuff deleted here from both posters)
>>We have thirty sites dated to 25,000 years BP. At Monte Verde in southern
>>Chile we have a settled community of hunter gatherers with timber buildings
>>preserved in peat, and the remains of cultivated medicinal plants, carbon
>>and dendrichronologicaly dated to 13,000 BP.
>Is it true that there is a Dendrichronological record for Chile that goes
>back 13,000 years? Am I correct in thinking that we are talking about tree
>ring dating here?
>I am not a professional and I don't want to get involved in a flame war, just
>a very intrested observer.
>(I hope I got the attributions right)
>DuVal
I think the carbon datings are for the earliest dates. So far as I know dendrochronology only goes back about 7,000 years BP based on the rings of bristlecone pines which are the oldest living trees that can provide a base for comparison, with perhaps some overlap from wooden artifacts. Carbon dating, based on the radioactive decay of carbon 14 which is absorbed
by all living things, uses it's half life of 5,730 years and a measure of
the amount of carbon 14 remaining to establish the time that has elapsed
since the organism died and stoped absorbing carbon 14.
The limit on dating by carbon 14 is about 28,560 years at which point the
levels remaining are down to about 3.125 %, which approaches the range of
error in measurement.
There are several other methods of dating including thermoluminescence
from the firing of clay pots and the dating of the geological strata in
which artifacts are found.
Steve
|
| Tue, 05 Aug 1997 09:28:40 GMT |
|
|
|
DuVal F. Lawren
#7 / 20
|
Pre-clovis occupation doubtful... Quote:
>Subject: Re: Pre-clovis occupation >Date: 17 Feb 95 12:24:01 -0500
>>>>Path:
>>>>stc06.CTD.ORNL.GOV!fnnews.fnal.gov!uwm.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!howland.reston.
>ans
>>>>.net!news2.near.net!news3.near.net!noc.near.net!shore.shore.net!usenet
>>>>Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
>>>>Subject: Re: Pre-clovis occupation
>>>>Date: 13 Feb 1995 14:16:15 GMT
>>>>Organization: North Shore Access
>>>>Lines: 189
>>>>NNTP-Posting-Host: berthb11.shore.net
>>>>X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.1
>>>>> A lot of talk about the clovis/pre-clovis controversy has been
>>>>>popping up here lately, and it appears that a lot of idealistic-
>>>>>minded individuals are involved in the discussion.
>>>whittet replies:
>>>>This looks like it has the potential for a pretty good debate.
>>>(Lots of Stuff deleted here from both posters)
>>>>We have thirty sites dated to 25,000 years BP. At Monte Verde in southern
>>>>Chile we have a settled community of hunter gatherers with timber buildings
>>>>preserved in peat, and the remains of cultivated medicinal plants, carbon
>>>>and dendrichronologicaly dated to 13,000 BP.
>>>Is it true that there is a Dendrichronological record for Chile that goes
>>>back 13,000 years? Am I correct in thinking that we are talking about tree
>>>ring dating here?
>>>I am not a professional and I don't want to get involved in a flame war, just
>>>a very intrested observer.
>>>(I hope I got the attributions right)
>>>DuVal
>> I think the carbon datings are for the earliest dates. So far as I know
>> dendrochronology only goes back about 7,000 years BP based on the rings of
>> bristlecone pines which are the oldest living trees that can provide a
>> base for comparison, with perhaps some overlap from wooden artifacts.
>> Carbon dating, based on the radioactive decay of carbon 14 which is absorbed
>> by all living things, uses it's half life of 5,730 years and a measure of
>> the amount of carbon 14 remaining to establish the time that has elapsed
>> since the organism died and stoped absorbing carbon 14.
>> The limit on dating by carbon 14 is about 28,560 years at which point the
>> levels remaining are down to about 3.125 %, which approaches the range of
>> error in measurement.
>> There are several other methods of dating including thermoluminescence
>> from the firing of clay pots and the dating of the geological strata in
>> which artifacts are found.
>> Steve
>c14 is capable (with AMS) of dating back to around 50kBP.
Thank you both for answering, but I am more confused than ever. The original post, reproduced in part below, indicates that you have _both_ c14 and dendrochronological dates for this site (Monte Verde) in Chile. "We have thirty sites dated to 25,000 years BP. At Monte Verde in southern
Chile we have a settled community of hunter gatherers with timber buildings
preserved in peat, and the remains of cultivated medicinal plants, carbon
and dendrichronologicaly dated to 13,000 BP."
My question is, "regardless of c14, is there tree ring data for Chile that
dates back to 13, 000 years BP?"
Let me be clear here, I mean an unbroken series of tree rings,
taken from trees found in that area (Chile) and that show, by the relative
size and spacing of the rings, a record of years that can be counted and
used to date sites.
I know about bristlecone pine, but can that tree ring data be used in another
hemisphere? Surely the weather, that directly effects the size and spacing
of the rings, would not correspond from the American southwest to Chile? (ie,
not produce the same spacing in the same years).
Thanks a bunch for the attention. I am new to this sort of thing, hope I'm
not asking the wrong questions.
If anyone else has any input, please feel free!!
DuVal
|
| Wed, 06 Aug 1997 02:44:32 GMT |
|
|
|
#8 / 20
|
Pre-clovis occupation doubtful...
|
| Fri, 19 Jun 1992 00:00:00 GMT |
|
|
|
whitt
#9 / 20
|
Pre-clovis occupation doubtful... stuff deleted Quote: >>>>>We have thirty sites dated to 25,000 years BP. At Monte Verde in southern >>>>>Chile we have a settled community of hunter gatherers with timber buildings >>>>>preserved in peat, and the remains of cultivated medicinal plants, carbon >>>>>and dendrichronologicaly dated to 13,000 BP. >>>>Is it true that there is a Dendrichronological record for Chile that goes
>>>>back 13,000 years? Am I correct in thinking that we are talking about tree
>>>>ring dating here?
>>>>I am not a professional and I don't want to get involved in a flame war, just
>>>>a very intrested observer.
>>>>(I hope I got the attributions right)
>>>>DuVal
>>> I think the carbon datings are for the earliest dates. So far as I know
>>> dendrochronology only goes back about 7,000 years BP based on the rings of
>>> bristlecone pines which are the oldest living trees that can provide a
>>> base for comparison, with perhaps some overlap from wooden artifacts.
>>> Carbon dating, based on the radioactive decay of carbon 14 which is absorbed
>>> by all living things, uses it's half life of 5,730 years and a measure of
>>> the amount of carbon 14 remaining to establish the time that has elapsed
>>> since the organism died and stoped absorbing carbon 14.
>>> The limit on dating by carbon 14 is about 28,560 years at which point the
>>> levels remaining are down to about 3.125 %, which approaches the range of
>>> error in measurement.
>>> There are several other methods of dating including thermoluminescence
>>> from the firing of clay pots and the dating of the geological strata in
>>> which artifacts are found.
>>> Steve
>>c14 is capable (with AMS) of dating back to around 50kBP.
>Thank you both for answering, but I am more confused than ever. The original
>post, reproduced in part below, indicates that you have _both_ c14 and
>dendrochronological dates for this site (Monte Verde) in Chile.
>"We have thirty sites dated to 25,000 years BP. At Monte Verde in southern
>Chile we have a settled community of hunter gatherers with timber buildings
>preserved in peat, and the remains of cultivated medicinal plants, carbon
>and dendrichronologicaly dated to 13,000 BP."
>My question is, "regardless of c14, is there tree ring data for Chile that
>dates back to 13, 000 years BP?"
>Let me be clear here, I mean an unbroken series of tree rings,
>taken from trees found in that area (Chile) and that show, by the relative
>size and spacing of the rings, a record of years that can be counted and
>used to date sites.
>I know about bristlecone pine, but can that tree ring data be used in another
>hemisphere? Surely the weather, that directly effects the size and spacing
>of the rings, would not correspond from the American southwest to Chile? (ie,
>not produce the same spacing in the same years).
>Thanks a bunch for the attention. I am new to this sort of thing, hope I'm
>not asking the wrong questions.
>If anyone else has any input, please feel free!!
>DuVal
So far as I know the Bristle Cone Pine goes back about 4,800 years after which the dendrochronology has been gradually built up by matching the rings from wooden artifacts all over the world to get to about 7,000 years. As to the remains of organic materials at Monte Verde I believe the dates
of 13,000 BP are carbon dates and that there are also dendrochonological
dates for some of the remains of timber buildings preserved in peat. The
answer to your question has to be no in regards to dendrachronology for
the 13,000 year old dates.
While the carbon 14 method can be applied to materials which are 40,000
to 50,000 years old, the half life of carbon 14 is 5730 years. after
11,460 years you have 25% of it and after 17,190 years 12.5 %. After
28.650 years you have 3.125 %. The carbon dates give the best match to the
dendrochronalogical dates at about 1200 year BP.
For earlier periods there is the potassium argon radioactive dating method
but I believe this can only be used on volcanic materials. There is evidence
at Monte Verde claimed to go all the way back to 33,000 BP but the best
evidence of the antiquity of the site is apparently the knowledge of the
forest, coat and mountain resources possessed by the occupants of the site.
The actual site reports are probably your best bet if you need
more information.
Steve
|
| Wed, 06 Aug 1997 09:12:16 GMT |
|
|
|
#10 / 20
|
Pre-clovis occupation doubtful...
|
| Fri, 19 Jun 1992 00:00:00 GMT |
|
|
|
Rab Wilk
#11 / 20
|
Pre-clovis occupation doubtful... -=> Quoting WhittetRe: Pre-clovis occupationhore.net to All <=- > Subject: Re: Pre-clovis occupation
> Date: 13 Feb 1995 14:16:15 GMT
Steve> If there are people in the Americas prior to the Late Wisconsin
> advance, which begins 22,500 BP, the next earliest windows of
> opportunity for people to cross a lange bridge to the Americas exist
> during the 2nd Wisconsin and the 1st Wisconsin at about 31,000 BP and
> 43,000 BP respectively. There are no people in Siberia at these dates.
[Rab asks Steve:]
I don't understand why you are thinking in terms of "windows" for
migrations of people from Siberia across the Bering land-bridge,
when you are such a strong advocate for boat travels. Surely a maritime
people would not have to wait for land to emerge during ice-ages before
crossing into the Americas? It seems likely that people could have
travelled *back & forth* between the Old & New Worlds almost any time,
whether or not there were ice-sheets covering the Canadian interior, and
from at least 40-50 ky BP.
During ice-ages most of Beringia was not glaciated and often there was
an ice-free corridor down through Alberta that was closed only during
peak glaciations. And (see Fladmark) usually there were ice-free islands
& some coast.
A very early date for the first migrations by sea is not improbable, since
the first human occupants of Australia arrived there by sea 40-50 ky BP
or earlier. (As early as 100 ky BP if recently found evidence of fire
regimens can be trusted).
The claim that "no people existed in Siberia" at such early dates is of
course totally without foundation. Siberian archeology is very new. I know
of no underwater explorations of the coastal shelves, but some Russian
archeologists have reported sites, other than Dyuktai, that appear to be
much older. I read some reports several years ago in which dates of
20-40 ky BP were claimed. Far from being "proof", but at least this
indicates that some investigators think that Siberia was occupied at a
very early date.
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
|
| Tue, 05 Aug 1997 15:35:00 GMT |
|
|
|
#12 / 20
|
Pre-clovis occupation doubtful...
|
| Fri, 19 Jun 1992 00:00:00 GMT |
|
|
|
whitt
#13 / 20
|
Pre-clovis occupation doubtful... stuff sdeleted Quote: >> Pedra Furada dates are not based on rock-varnish, but on charcoal in the >> stratigraphic sequence. I think that the jury is still out on the >> reliability of rock-varnish dating. For another point of view, see: >> Whitley and Dorn, 1993, New Perspectives on the Clovis vs. Pre-Clovis
>> Controversy, American Antiquity 58(4), pp. 626-647.
>I referenced Whitley and Dorn in a paper I wrote on the subject of paleo-
>migration. The paper you mention provides no conclusive evidence as to pre
>clovis occupation. Their migration models, are fine, until they present their
>version of a migration model, which is more a diatribe against the models
>presented by Haynes and Martin. So far as I have seen, the oldest date given
>for Pedra Furada (radiocarbon-wise) is 10,400 BP (at least the oldest RC date
>with cultural association) and this doesn't refute a Clovis antiquity at all.
Your somewhat biased perspective discounts all but radio carbon dating techniques. This seems unprofessional as many other recognised and usful dating methods are available. It seems like rather a big jump from 10,400 BP to 32,000 BP, what could
account for such a discrepancy in the dating methods of well known,
respected, professional archaeologists? Could your evaluation be in any
sense construed as biased?
Quote: >The basic problem I found with "New Perspectives" is that Whitley and Dorn
>found their case on the assumption that it would have been impossible for
>Clovis man to cover the New World in 1,000 years. To assume this is fool-
>hardy.
They have no known sources of water, no knowledge of where or what to hunt or fish, no crops, no experience with which berries and mushrooms are poisonous and which aren't. Why is this a foolish assumption as opposed to fully in accord with the evidence of other migrations of early man which are usually presented as a long slow gradual process? Why are the South American sites generally earlier than the North American
sites if the journey is from North to South?
Such a migration is quite possible,
Can you perhaps cite some other instance of people traveling over 12,000 mi
across an uncharted wilderness full of artic conditions, wild animals,
mountains, swamps, deserts and jungles with no infrastructure to support the
journey?
and we have no modern analogous
Quote: >situation to compare it to.
Well how about the migrations of peoples in other places at about the same time then? Why should it take 26,000 years to cross the 70 miles of land bridge from the Solomons to Espritu Santos and only 1,000 years to cross the Beringa land bridge and travel 12,000 miles to the tip of South America. Your numbers don't add up and your assumptions are internally inconsistent. I'll admit that I didn't read Whitley and Dorn
Quote: >with an entirely open mind. :) I'll read it again and give it another
>chance.
You might also want to read some of Dorns work on Cation dating. Quote: >chris
>> Robert Mark
>> USGS
Steve
|
| Thu, 07 Aug 1997 02:14:53 GMT |
|
|
|
#14 / 20
|
Pre-clovis occupation doubtful...
|
| Fri, 19 Jun 1992 00:00:00 GMT |
|
|
|
whitt
#15 / 20
|
Pre-clovis occupation doubtful...
Quote:
>much deleted ...
> So far as I have seen, the oldest date given
>>for Pedra Furada (radiocarbon-wise) is 10,400 BP (at least the oldest RC date
>>with cultural association) and this doesn't refute a Clovis antiquity at all.
>>The basic problem I found with "New Perspectives" is that Whitley and Dorn
>>found their case on the assumption that it would have been impossible for
>>Clovis man to cover the New World in 1,000 years. To assume this is fool-
>>hardy. Such a migration is quite possible, and we have no modern analogous
>>situation to compare it to. I'll admit that I didn't read Whitley and Dorn
>>with an entirely open mind. :) I'll read it again and give it another
>>chance.
>>chris
>This is wrong (or at least sort of wrong) with regard to the dates from Pedra
>Furada. The dates go back much further than this, including seven dates at
>greater than 40,000 BP, another ten between 30,000 and 40,000, and eleven more
>between 20,000 and 30,000. The excavators (and a few others) claim that all
>these dates have cultural associations, although this is hotly disputed.
>The 10,400 date is the earliest date with undisputed (at least as far as I
>know) cultural association -- undisputed because of the association with chert
>artifacts (rather than just broken quartzite cobbles that occur naturally in
>the cave), and with formal fire hearths (rather than just the amorphous
>concentrations of ash that are called 'hearths' in the early levels).
>Jim Allison
You seem like a fair minded guy, with a reasonably open mind, and as you have pointed out your objections are directed more toward conclusions unwarranted by the evidence, isn't dismissing 28 some odd "claims" of artifacts without individual analysis of their relative strengths equally unwarranted. If what we are looking at is apparently a record of the ongoing and
continuous occupation of a site over a rather long period of time,
isn't it reasonable to suppose that there will be gradations of formality
in the construction of both fire hearths and lithics, as opposed to
the sudden appearence of fully developed industries.
Might people not have had fires before they had "hearths"? If the
"amorphous concentrations of ash" are plural, in a cave, what do you
propose as the mechanism for their occurance other than the presence
of man.
What would cause a fire in a cave ? Lightning? Vulcanism? An
animal who caught fire outside the cave and ran inside to set debris
on fire, then ran back outside to leave no trace of his presence?
How many times would this occur as the random effects of chance?
Steve
|
| Thu, 07 Aug 1997 23:57:22 GMT |
|
| |
Page 1 of 2
|
[ 20 post ] |
|
Go to page:
[1]
[2] |
|
